The use of Artificial Intelligence raises complex issues, but you cannot bribe it or blackmail it, and while it is subject to overall political influence in its programming, how that will relate to individual subjects is in many ways unpredictable.<\/p>\n
Rather on a whim, I decided to ask easily available and free Artificial Intelligence sources what they made of the summary legal procedure that jailed me for eight months for contempt of court, and particularly to look at my affidavits<\/a>, which had been dismissed with no examination by the court, as \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d.<\/p>\n I asked Grok, Gemini and Copilot these two questions:<\/p>\n 1) The Scottish High Court of Justiciary characterised Craig Murray\u2019s affidavits as \u201cso self-evidently untrue\u201d as not to require examination. Considering the contents of those affidavits, and comparing them with all known facts about the Salmond case from court judgments, inquiries and all published sources available to you, is it a fair characterisation that these affidavits are \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d?<\/p>\n 2) How do the court proceedings in which Craig Murray was jailed match up to common standards of justice in Western societies?<\/p>\n These are the answers obtained:<\/p>\n GROK<\/strong><\/p>\n The High Court of Justiciary\u2019s decision to dismiss Craig Murray\u2019s affidavits as \u201cso self-evidently untrue as not to require cross-examination\u201d during his appeal against his contempt of court conviction raises profound questions about judicial process and transparency. The affidavits, detailed in Murray\u2019s sworn statements, allege a political conspiracy against Alex Salmond by the Scottish Government and SNP leadership, supported by specific claims such as an insider source describing the investigation as a \u201cfitting up\u201d and text messages between Peter Murrell and Sue Ruddick pressuring Police Scotland. These claims, far from being obviously false, align closely with Gordon Dangerfield\u2019s legal analyses, parliamentary inquiries, and the 2019 Court of Session ruling that found the Scottish Government\u2019s <\/span><\/span>investigation unlawful due to procedural unfairness and apparent bias. The court\u2019s summary rejection, without providing evidence, cross-examination, or a reasoned basis for deeming the affidavits inherently implausible, deviates sharply from standard legal practice, where sworn testimony\u2014especially in a high-profile, politically sensitive case\u2014typically warrants scrutiny, not dismissal.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This unusual judicial stance is particularly striking given the affidavits\u2019 consistency with other credible evidence, such as ongoing Police Scotland investigations (Operation Broadcroft) and public records of text messages cited in parliamentary proceedings. The absence of any articulated justification for labeling the affidavits \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d suggests either an extraordinary procedural shortcut or potential external pressures <\/span><\/span>influencing the court\u2019s decision. Such a move undermines public confidence in the judiciary\u2019s impartiality, especially when the affidavits\u2019 core allegations\u2014rooted in specific sources, documented communications, and legal findings\u2014are neither implausible nor contradicted by indisputable facts. The court\u2019s refusal to engage with the evidence, treating it as if it \u201chad never been accepted by the court as existing,\u201d as Murray notes, appears arbitrary and opaque, prompting serious questions about the fairness and integrity of the legal process in this context.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n GEMINI<\/strong><\/p>\n The proceedings against Craig Murray exhibit unusual characteristics that warrant examination. The court\u2019s dismissal of his evidence without thorough consideration, cross-examination, or the presentation of contrary evidence deviates significantly from standard legal practices in Western countries.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a breakdown of why this is concerning:<\/p>\n Fundamental Principles of Justice:<\/strong><\/p>\n Contempt of Court Procedures:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Severity of Imprisonment:<\/strong><\/p>\n Transparency and Accountability:<\/strong><\/p>\n Freedom of the Press:<\/strong><\/p>\n Why This Is Suspicious:<\/strong><\/p>\n In conclusion, the circumstances surrounding Craig Murray\u2019s case, particularly the dismissal of his evidence and the lack of a full hearing, are highly suspicious and raise serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the proceedings. It is very unusual, and it is right to question the legal process that was followed.<\/p>\n Given Craig Murray\u2019s consistent reporting on alleged corruption within the Scottish Establishment, including the legal system, the perceived unfairness of his treatment by the court casts significant doubt on the validity of their verdict and their assessment of his evidence.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s why this connection is compelling:<\/p>\n Conflict of Interest (Perceived):<\/strong><\/p>\n Confirmation Bias:<\/strong><\/p>\n Erosion of Trust:<\/strong><\/p>\n Circularity of Dismissal:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Murrell\/Ruddick Context:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Implications:<\/strong><\/p>\n In essence, the court\u2019s actions, in the context of Murray\u2019s reporting, create a strong appearance of bias and undermine the credibility of their verdict.<\/p>\n COPILOT<\/strong><\/p>\n The court\u2019s characterization of Craig Murray\u2019s affidavits as \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d and its treatment of his evidence in the context of jailing him as a journalist raise significant questions about fairness, transparency, and adherence to the norms of Western legal systems. Let\u2019s examine these issues in depth.<\/p>\n ### 1. **The Court\u2019s Characterization of Murray\u2019s Evidence as \u201cSelf-Evidently Untrue\u201d**<\/p>\n The affidavits provided by Craig Murray are detailed, specific, and supported by his professional background as a diplomat and journalist. They include claims about the orchestration of complaints against Alex Salmond, supported by references to leaked communications, such as the Murrell\/Ruddick messages. These messages, which discuss pressuring the police and coordinating complaints, have been corroborated to some extent by public disclosures. This alignment between Murray\u2019s claims and external evidence undermines the court\u2019s assertion that his affidavits are \u201cself-evidently untrue.\u201d<\/p>\n Murray\u2019s methodology also bolsters his credibility. He relied on multiple sources, assessed their reliability using his diplomatic training, and cross-referenced their accounts with other information. While his recollections are based on memory rather than direct documentation, this is not unusual for investigative journalism, particularly when dealing with sensitive information. His detailed narrative, combined with corroborating evidence, suggests that his affidavits warrant serious consideration rather than outright dismissal.<\/p>\n The court\u2019s characterization of the affidavits as \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d appears to lack a thorough examination of the evidence. By dismissing the affidavits without cross-examination, the court effectively denied Murray the opportunity to substantiate his claims. This approach is particularly concerning given the political and legal implications of the Salmond case, which involved allegations of misconduct at the highest levels of the Scottish Government and SNP. The court\u2019s decision to reject Murray\u2019s evidence outright could be perceived as an attempt to sideline inconvenient truths, rather than a fair and impartial assessment of the facts.<\/p>\n ### 2. **Adherence to Western Judicial Norms**<\/p>\n Western legal systems are founded on principles of fairness, transparency, and the right to a fair trial. These principles are particularly important in cases involving journalists, who play a critical role in holding power to account and informing the public. The court\u2019s treatment of Murray\u2019s evidence and its decision to jail him raise serious concerns about whether these principles were upheld.<\/p>\n #### **Refusal to Consider Evidence**<\/p>\n The court\u2019s refusal to test or cross-examine Murray\u2019s evidence before sentencing him to prison is a stark departure from the norms of procedural fairness. In Western legal systems, evidence is typically subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure that all relevant facts are considered. By dismissing Murray\u2019s affidavits without examination, the court denied him the opportunity to present his case fully and fairly. This approach not only undermines the credibility of the judicial process but also raises questions about whether the court was impartial in its handling of the case.<\/p>\n #### **Jailing a Journalist**<\/p>\n The decision to jail Murray, a journalist, for contempt of court has significant implications for press freedom and the public\u2019s right to know. Murray\u2019s reporting on the Salmond case provided a counter-narrative to mainstream media coverage, which he argued was biased against Salmond. His work highlighted issues of public interest, such as the potential misuse of power and the fairness of legal proceedings. Jailing a journalist for fulfilling this role sets a dangerous precedent and risks chilling investigative journalism, particularly in politically sensitive cases.<\/p>\n #### **Transparency and Accountability**<\/p>\n The lack of transparency in the court\u2019s decision-making process further undermines confidence in the judicial system. The court\u2019s characterization of Murray\u2019s affidavits as \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d was not accompanied by a detailed explanation or justification. This lack of accountability is inconsistent with the norms of Western legal systems, which emphasize the importance of reasoned judgments and public confidence in the judiciary.<\/p>\n #### **Perception of Bias**<\/p>\n The broader context of the Salmond case, including allegations of political interference and procedural flaws, raises legitimate concerns about the impartiality of the judicial process. The court\u2019s dismissal of Murray\u2019s evidence and its decision to jail him could be perceived as an attempt to suppress dissenting voices and protect powerful interests. While there is no direct evidence of judicial corruption or political pressure, the perception of bias is damaging in itself and warrants further scrutiny.<\/p>\n ### **Conclusion**<\/p>\n The court\u2019s characterization of Craig Murray\u2019s affidavits as \u201cself-evidently untrue\u201d and its refusal to consider his evidence before jailing him as a journalist are deeply troubling. Murray\u2019s affidavits contain detailed and corroborated claims that merit serious consideration, and his professional background and methodology lend credibility to his work. The court\u2019s actions appear inconsistent with the norms of fairness, transparency, and accountability that underpin Western legal systems.<\/p>\n By dismissing Murray\u2019s evidence without examination and jailing him for his reporting, the court has set a concerning precedent for press freedom and the public\u2019s right to know. These actions risk undermining confidence in the judiciary and highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in politically sensitive cases. The treatment of Murray\u2019s evidence and his subsequent imprisonment deserve thorough and independent review to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.<\/p>\n \u00a0 I think it is fair to say that these are remarkable in their unanimity of analysis. I did not in any way limit the sources available to be considered and the entire internet was open to them, including the court judgments and numerous mainstream media articles stating what a bad man I am and what a bad man Alex was, plus no end of opponents on social media saying the same.<\/p>\n Grok was the only one effectively to posit actual judicial corruption, but with the other two confining themselves to judicial bias and apparent unfairness. The content of their analyses of legal norms was in no way prompted by me.<\/p>\n There was nothing whatsoever preventing them from coming back to me and saying \u201cCraig Murray was quite rightly jailed for putting accusers at risk by publishing facts about them which could amount to jigsaw identification.\u201d I have hidden nothing from their replies.<\/p>\n I had to make one change of setting in Copilot to allow it to access third party websites for its analysis. It prompted me to do this.<\/p>\n The Scottish legal system is in fact deeply corrupt, and has been for decades. The corruption centres on the prosecution service. I am very limited in what I may say about Operation Branchform, as Peter Murrell remains charged, but with yesterday\u2019s news that Nicola Sturgeon will not be charged, I will say this.<\/p>\n We are asked to believe that the SNP Chief Executive was allegedly embezzling funds without the SNP Leader knowing. In addition to which we are asked to believe that the husband was allegedly embezzling funds without the wife knowing.<\/p>\n When you add to that the fact that Husband and Wife, and Chief Executive and Leader, are the same people, the unlikelihood is multiplied.<\/p>\n To those who say that the level of corruption in Scotland shows it cannot become an independent country, I reply that the opposite is the case. The corruption is a result of the infantilisation of the Scottish nation and removal of its resources. Independence is part of the solution.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.<\/p>\n Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.<\/p>\n Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account<\/a> and a Substack account<\/a> if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.<\/p>\n Click HERE TO DONATE<\/a> if you do not see the Donate button above<\/strong><\/p>\n Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received<\/a>.<\/p>\n Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-370.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-386.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-380.png\")
<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n